Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 06:19:25 -0800 (PST) From: Danial Thom <danial_thom@yahoo.com> To: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org>, "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dual Core vs HyperThreading vs Dual CPU Message-ID: <20060112141925.91320.qmail@web33307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20060111191224.A93090@cons.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--- Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote on Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at > 12:52:24PM -0400: > > > > I'm going to assume that Dual Core is better > (can't believe that they took > > a step back) ... but, is how does it rate? I > know that HyperThreading is > > definitely != Dual CPU ... but how close does > Dual Core get? > > It is the real thing, at least when it comes to > AMD64 and > Netburst-based Intel dual-cores. Every core > has a full set of own > caches just like dual CPU. Yonah (dual-core > Pentium-M) has a shared > L2 cache. > > I have benchmarks comparing dual-core 939 > socket systems against dual > 940 socket systems here: > http://cracauer-forum.cons.org/forum/crabench.html Just a question about your benches, any reason you just don't ship files to /dev/null? That was always the standard in unix to get the disk out of it. DT __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060112141925.91320.qmail>